Canon portrait lenses - 24-105 or 85 1.8 and 100 2.8?

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>Hi, thanks for any feedback and suggestions. I'm looking to take my shooting to a higher level, especially in portraiture. I'm deciding on which lenses to get for various uses but would be interested in any feedback on which lens, or set of lenses, would be best. I do eventually wish to dive into studio lighting but for now really want to focus on natural light, windows, bounce cards, reflectors, and dawn and dusk lighting.<br>

So, the question I have is would it behoove me to get the 24-105 4L or the pair that includes the 85 1.8 and 100 IS 2.8L Macro?<br>

I already have the 50 1.8, a 20 2.8, and a 70-200 2.8L.<br>

Or, is there another lens or combination of lenses that would be more optimal for portraiture?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Don</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Or, is there another lens or combination of lenses that would be more optimal for portraiture?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other fine portrait lenses included the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM, Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM.</p>

<p>The EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM makes not much sense unless you shoot macro, especially since you already have the same aperture/focal length covered by your zoom. The EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM zoom is nice, but for controlled portraiture a prime is more practical -- it's faster, weights and costs less.</p>

<p>A wide angle lens can also be used for more "dramatic" portraits -- I use the mundane EF 24mm f/2.8 a lot these days. A lens or adapter with tilt and/or shift capabilities also offers a unique look for portraiture.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Second the 100mm f2, and Bueh's comment about the 2.8.</p>

<p>Used Nikon 105mm f2.5 Ai-S ($100-200) on a Canon adapter. I use that on my 5D II, and wow. Long throw focus, easy as pie with an EF-S screen.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I use the 17-40 with a 1.6 body and the 24-70 with a 1.3 body. I find it works far better when I can relate to the subjects, being farther away makes that much more difficult. You can see some of my portraits <a href="http://spirer.com/Portraits/index.html">taken with the 24-70 here.</a> So in response to the specific question you asked, I would go with the 24-105, but that's because of how I shoot. There isn't really such a thing as a "portrait lens," there are lenses that work well for how you shoot and what you want your portraits to look like. That's a pretty broad range.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Don,</p>

<p>Check your EXIF data and look at the portraits you like most, what focal length and aperture were they shot at, and was lighting used? You can look at the EXIF on a surprising number of images on the net too.</p>

<p>The truth is the 70-200 f2.8 is a very very good portrait lens, to get a lens that does anything in its focal length that does a considerably better job you need to get very specific. Things like the 85 f1.2, if very narrow dof appeals to you, the 100 macro, if the zooms closest focus is letting you down, things like that. There are a lot of lenses that could be interesting to you, the two 85's, the three 100's, the two 135's, the 90 TS-E, the list just goes on. But to get anything out of them that you can't get from your zoom you need to really look at what images you like and how they were achieved. This will really narrow it down.</p>

<p>But, I think you know the real answer lies in the lighting, good lenses don't make good portraits, good lighting does. For the money I'd get a couple of stands and clamps, some reflectors, a small softbox, a regular flash and a cheap set of ebay wireless triggers, they will improve your portraits way more than most lenses.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>24-105mm is the most versatile so I would go for that.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>With the 70-200 f/2.8 you already have a portrait lens. So what exactly are you missing?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>70-200 is way too long in some situations.</p>

<p>Here is a cover I did for a magazine of 2004 Olympic boxing champion Andre Ward. I arrived on location, and was allotted a space that required me to shoot at about 45mm on a 1.3x body. 70mm would never have worked. The idea that somehow there is a "right" focal length for portraits is an idea that should go away. </p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/wardcover.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>There's another thread going right now, about getting 100/2 or 100/2.8 IS when you already have 70-200/2.8</p>

<p>Personally I'd get the zoom.</p>

<p>Another approach would be 35/1.4 plus 50/1.4</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Got to agree with Jeff, pretty much any lens can be used to make good portraits, I use 35mm a lot particularly for environmental portraits. That is why I said check your EXIF, what focal length do you use and like. I wouldn't get anything until I looked at what I needed.</p>

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>Hey, thanks everyone for the great feedback. I've also been considering the 24-70 2.8L as well. I can use that for some of the other things I do and may be swayed to get that. <br>

I'll play around with what I have now as Scott suggested and see which length works best, though I hope to be more versatile. And yes, I do wish to get far more proficient in regards to lighting, but that will be for another thread.<br>

Thanks again!<br>

Don</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>a higher level . . . in <strong>portraiture </strong>. . . lenses to get for <strong>various uses</strong> . . . eventually wish to dive into <strong>studio lighting</strong> but for now really want to focus on <strong>natural light, windows, bounce cards, reflectors, and dawn and dusk lighting.</strong><br /><br />1. > get the 24-105 4L or the pair that includes the 85 1.8 and 100 IS 2.8L Macro?<br />I already have the 50 1.8, a 20 2.8, and a 70-200 2.8L.<br />2. > another lens or combination of lenses that would be more optimal for portraiture?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. Choosing from those two options I would buy the 85 and the 100/2.8IS, mainly because of maximum aperture.</p>

<p>2. Given the lenses you have – I would first ask <em><strong>what camera format?</strong></em></p>

<p>As it is implied most(?) of the initial work will be inside and using natural light and later you want to do studio work I would be collecting a group of Primes to cover the most used compass of FL according to your camera’s format.<br />Assuming you have a 135 format camera; <em>and if you don’t I think you should consider it apropos the leverage of DoF that 135 format provides</em>, then I would look at: 35/1.4 preferred (or 35/2) or; 85/1.8 or 85/1.2; and 135/2, to add to your existing lens cache.</p>

<p>I believe that the 100/2.8M IS makes some sense – although it is an F2.8 lens – it does introduce IS - and that is not available on the 70 to 200 lens the OP cited.<br />In this regard the 24 – 105/4 IS makes sense also, but I generally prioritize Aperture Speed for a Portrait Lens (in fact all lenses) and use a monopod or tripod and remote release, if necessary.</p>

<p>I agree whole heartedly that a TS-E 45 or TS-E 90 would push the limits for you.<br>

That pair is marvellous for 135 format cameras.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>Sorry, thought I had the camera in the original post. Right now I have a Canon 50D. I've been considering the 7D but I really do love the 50D.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Don</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"Right now I have a Canon 50D. I've been considering the 7D"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then that is entirely a different kettle of kippers.<br /><br />Notwithstanding my comment to consider 135 format – I would be looking at the 24/1.4; 35/1.4 (or 35/2) and the 85/1.8 or 85/1.2 to add to your lens kit.<br /><br />If you want to work with a fast zoom then I would look at the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM, IMO 24 not wide enough on APS-C – YMMV.<br>

<br />The TS-E 45 and 90 in some ways are less useful on APS-C for Portraiture so you can tone down my passion there but the45 would be great fun.<br>

<br />I see less sense in buying the 100/2.8MIS for portraiture on APS-C.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"So, the question I have is would it behoove me to get the 24-105 4L or the pair that includes the 85 1.8 and 100 IS 2.8L Macro?<br />I already have the 50 1.8, a 20 2.8, and a 70-200 2.8L."<br />=====================================<br />You did not mention what type of body you have(1.6X, 1.3X, FF), but having a zoom is definately an advantage for composing. I tried using the shorter length lenses such as the 17-55mm and found that I had to be pretty up close to the subject to fill the frame.</p>

<p>When I tried using the longer length lenses such as the 70-200, I lost intimacy with the subject and found out I had t move back allot, or take only head-shots.</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.8/f1,4 is a good choice for 1.6X/1.3X, just dont use it at f1.8 due to blur. The 100mm Macro is a nice sharp lens and would make a great portrait lens except is too sharp ! Unless all your subjects have the skin of a model, I would think about that one.</p>

<p>If you plan to use any of the short focal length lenses, watch out for distortion ! Especially the super wide angle lenses, I usually wont go under 35mm unless I have no other choice. Even then the heads are streched a bit if you look real carefully and everything that is even close to the camera gets accentuated.</p>

<p>The 85mm f1.8 is about the perfect portrait lens on a FF, but so is the 50mm on a 1.6X. For blurry backgrounds you need a fast lens, or a long lens. You practically have to be 20 feet back, at f5.6/f8 to blur the background.<br />The longer lenses usually give you the sweet bokeh, but then you have to be at a distance. Believe it or not, I had great luck with the Canon 28-135 f3.5/5.6 taped down to about 70-75mm on a 1.6X and standing about 8-10 feet back from the subject and 3 feet back from the Fill light. It all depends on your shooting style and what the client wants.</p>

[Brad_]

Like Jeff, I like getting close, feeling that good portraiture starts from having a relationship between

subject and photographer. Look at how Avedon shot. Can't imagine doing a portrait with a 100mm even

on a full-frame cam. And on a crop body that would be shooting someone down the block. <P>

 

Today I use a 35mm exclusively on a full-frame cam. Works great for "street photography" and street

portraiture.<P>

 

<center><img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images54/Freddie.jpg"><BR>

<i>Freddie Genre</i></center>

[ncarnick]

<p>I have the old 85 1.2 and it is easily my favorite canon lens. At the same time it wouldn't be my recommendation for most as it is expensive, heavy, and not that versatile compared to the 85 1.8. For the money that might be the best lens they have and I often ponder getting it as well for everyday use (shots of my kids playing sports where I have an ability to get near the action). What kept me from getting it was how surprised I was at the quality of the 24-105. Sure it doesn't have the narrow DOF but as a travel lens it is hard to beat and spends a lot of time on my 5D ii. <br>

I've read your camera and lens comments. Based on them it is really hard to make a suggestion other than you see if the 70-200 covers what you do well enough. I think the 85 1.8 would be great as a headshot lens or something you can bring to a dark event without being as noticeable but given your reach on the 70-200 2.8, there is some logic to wait out the new 24-70 ii (rumor is April release based on some leaked marketing and a patent filing). I'm guessing this will be a pricey lens. However the 100 IS 2.8 macro might be $1,000 of unused lens if you don't do much macro and don't find it a lot better than your current 70-200. The new 24-70 might be $500 more but could get a lot of use. Furthermore, the older 24-70 might be a lot cheaper once the new one comes out.<br>

In any event, all the stuff you are looking at are lenses others would love to have. Just pick something you'll use and you will have chosen well.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Don:</p>

<p>I like the 24-105/4. In fact, the only time I use the 85/1.8 now is for low light action shots, like basketball in dismally lit gyms.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>You didn't specify a crop or FF body, so I'll assume FF. I like the 24-105mm f/4 L, but it wouldn't be my first choice as a lens primarily for portraits. If you like the 24mm to whatever focal length zooms, for portraits I think that the 24-70mm f/2.8 could be better bet. </p>

<p>I'm not implying that you cannot shoot portraits with the 24-105 (or a whole bunch of other options, some of which might seem a bit untraditional), but its bokeh is not wonderful for this sort of thing. (Before people write in to tell me that the 24-105 is a wonderful portrait lens... I own one. It is my core lens. I like it a lot. It has a bunch of strengths. But they aren't particularly in the specific areas that one might usually look for in a lens specifically for portrait work.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>You didn't specify a crop or FF body, so I'll assume FF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you took the time to read through the posts, you would know what he uses. </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>May your clients all have smooth beautiful skin.</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>I think you have what you need. You might look into an ultra wide angle. If you are shooting full frame (5DII), then 16-35mm f2.8L. If you are shooting with a cropped sensor, then there are lots of choices... probably the 10-22mm EF-S. Wide is not my first choice for portraiture, but it is kind of fashionable right now especially for environmental portraiture.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Marc ultra-wide lenses are absolutely horrible for portaits. You might get some oohs and ahs but nobody would pay for them, or maybe just a few.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>If you use a <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">Depth of field calulator </a> To compare the depth of field you will get using the 85 at F1.8 verses the70-200 at 85mm and F2.8, the difference, in my opinion (typically 1 or 2 inches at distances I would use) is not enough to justify the purchase. Canons 70-200 lenses are all very good so other than the larger aperture I doubt you will see any difference.</p>

<p>As to the 100mm F2.8 macro, it is definitely a good lens for macro work. However for portraits you often don't need the macro capability. So if you again compare the 100mm F2.8 macro with the 70-200mm at 100mm and F2.8 at none macro distances you will not see any diferences (depth of field is the same and both are optically very god). </p>

<p>For a 50D or 7D I would instead go for a 24-70 F2.8 with the 70-200 F2.8. Those two lenses would cover most of your needs. Through in EF-S 60 F2.8 for macro and some portrait work and you have a good versital lens kit. If macro is not your thing I would recommend the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX lens instead of the 60mm. The Sigm 50mm is two full stops faster than the F2.8 and 2/3 of a stop faster than the 85mm. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not implying that you cannot shoot portraits with the 24-105 (or a whole bunch of other options, some of which might seem a bit untraditional), but its bokeh is not wonderful for thissort of thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree with this. The focal length and IS of the 24-105 is very usesful very smooth Bokeh is not its strong point. My 70-200 F4 has in my opinion has very good bokeh and I would guess the same is true for the 70-200 F2.8. I have no experience with the 24-70 F2.8. As to the Sigma 50 F1.4 it is known for its very smooth bokeh and my copy has no focus issues at all. I have seen some examples of fairly harsh bokeh from the canon 50 F1.4 and its not as sharp as the Sigma 50mm at F1.4.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>My most used lenses for indoor portraiture are my EF 50/1.4 and 85/1.2 L. Occasionally, I use my 24-70/2.8 L and 35/1.4 L. I also have the 100/2, and have used the 85/1.8; while both of these lenses are excellent, I'd recommend that, since their focal lengths are so close, you get only one of them. They are virtually identical optically.</p>